B-man
the following is a curiously telling exchange - the guy asks real question and harry does not answer - just yip yap - Bill is advocate/friend and harry blows him off with Yip Yap
frankly disapppointing I am thru just over half of the posts and while there is limited data (curiously seem to change post to post - sure R&D but really), lots of yip yap.
Re: cyclone engine
Posted by: Bill Gatlin (IP Logged)
Date: February 12, 2008 03:46PM
Murphy was misquoted. He never really said that.
Harry, is the 23% efficiency total, from the tank to the dyno? I'm assuming you were around at the time, just to see what those Cyclone raskals were doing. LOL
23% sounds about right for starters from what engine thermo parameters I know of. About 30% + engine efficiency with boiler and pumping losses. Tuning should push it up another couple-three percent. How are the Peek rings holding up?
Keep up the great work. Maybe someday, you, I, and Peter will have a car race. Wouldn't that be fun?
Best Regards, ------- Bill G.
Options: Reply To This Message•Reply via PM•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: cyclone engine
Posted by: HLS (IP Logged)
Date: February 12, 2008 04:32PM
HI Bill
The rings are working great. Just a peek ring is not the total answer as it is a total system not just one material. Jim Has been of emence help as there is no substute for experence ,and he will not put his name on wild claims. Yes the calculated efficency numbers are higher, however caution must be excerised and only true tested data be published as such, The theroetical is still the theroetical and is used for calculations and goals.
Harry
